YOUR PERSONAL POST OFFICE...TRY IT FREE FOR 90 DAYS! It's like having your
own post office, right in your home. No more tripsto buy stamps. Meter
refills itself. Save up to 20% on postage. Try it free for 90 days. Click
here! http://a-albionic.com/postoffice.html

*** << END
Lloyd Said: No, F. Mann, you are missing the point entirely in an
ultra-reductionist, nominalist manner.

Mann Responded: You made certain points which set me thinking, resulting
in my making different points, because I don't agree with
your points. To jump to the conclusion that I "missed
your point" because I made different points is fallacious
thinking.

Lloyd Sez: No, I challenged your ideas and instead of
arguing effectively, you simply restated your opions which
I already read and understood.

Mann Said: To achieve level-3 freedom it's imperative that you develop
the thinking skills and virtues of ultra-reductionism and
nominalism.

Lloyd Sez: No, ultra-reductionism considers personal
identity and consciousness to be illusions. Nominalism
is a dead end that ultimately denies approaching truth
through the scientific method.

Mann Said: (I'm not suggesting that you even attempt to
advance to level-3 freedom. That may not be appropriate
for you. But this discussion may assist others to advance
to level-3 freedom.)

Lloyd Sez: The above is a silly, gratuitous insult. The argument
from intimidation.

Mann Said: From a level-3 perspective the "Vatican social organism"
notion is a negative peme (and "reme" = religious meme)
in your head. The basic mental mechanism which gives
rise to such pemes/remes is anthropomorphism --
'#TL05AB: ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND RELATED PHENOMENA'
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl05ab.htm>.

Lloyd Responds: The Vatican Social Organism is a meme complex in the
mind of its members, those individuals subsumed and controlled
by the Vatican meme broadcasters. In my mind it is a theory about
a possible external existent. Recognizing that a macrobe or social
organism exists is not the same as being captured in its meme field.

Lloyd Goes On to Say: Anthropomorphism can be a useful heuristic method in
developing and
clarifying hypotheses and theories. I agree that it does not prove the
truth of any particular theory. Only the scientific method can increase
or decrease an individual's confidence that a theory approaches external
truth.

"Lloyd Miller" <lloyd@a-albionic.com>:

Mr. Mann, I wrote all this to counteract your
assumption that collectives are delusional. Contrary
to what you have written, the individualist need not
deny the reality of collectives in order to refuse to
be part of them. Because the collective's pemes and
memes are real in the minds of others the collectives
are also real. The individualist need not join in.
However, this is not easy and requires a lifelong struggle
as one can unconsciously accept many memes and pemes.
People are born in collectives and rapidly become
infested with the memes propagated by the collective's
memetic field. Only after decades of stuggle a la
Gurdjieff can anyone hope to be an individual in direct
contact with the evidence of reality, unfiltered by the
social organism.

Denial of the objective existence of collectives is
denial of reality, often a vain positing of one's own
individuality....just as the individual has a reality
beyond the reality of electro-chemically manipulated
cells and organs, collectives have an existence beyond
the actions of individuals human beings, including
"Masters" or the "Ruling Class."

By the way, it is nearly universal that individualists
have considered collectives delusional a la Stirner
though without being as thorough going. I say unto you:
Pretending collectives don't exist doesn't work.

> Mr. Mann, I wrote all this to counteract your>assumption that collectives are delusional.

Mann Responds: The above isn't my assumption. That which I contend is
illusional occurs in people's heads. In other words, it's
not "collectives" which are illusional. It's the *notions*
in people's heads about certain "collectives existing" --
or even being volitional entities -- that are illusions.

Lloyd Responds: I never said that the mere presence of an
idea of a collective in a person's head means the collective exists.
By the scientific method we can test which social collectives actually
exist by virture of a functioning memetic complex in an operating
set of individual minds.

Lloyd Said Earlier: Contrary to what you have written, the individualist
need
not deny the reality of collectives in order to refuse to
be part of them.

Mann Responded: Actually, a distinction needs to be made. I believe that
my body exists as a collective. There are real collectives
and there are illusions in people's heads.

The individual at level-3 freedom realizes that the fact
that millions of people think and behave as if certain
"collectives" are real doesn't make "them" so. From the
level-3 perspective, in these cases, there's nothing to
be part of or not part of. It's an issue of ceasing to
think, communicate, and behave like the ontological
collectivists (but pretending to do so, when that's
deemed appropriate).

Lloyd Responds: As I stated before, if a set of individuals
are significantly manipulated by a meme complex which
issues from the power center of a social organism, ie. like
the Vatican, Washington, Grand Lodge of the Masons, etc.
then, I am arguing, that social organism exists. As an individualist,
however, of course, I can refuse to be part of it...I can say no
to the Borg....there is no need to deny its existence to be free
of its memes. Of course, my idea or theory about the existence
of any particular macrobe could be wrong. As with any theory
only the scientific method can increase or decrease my confidence
about the possible existence of any particular macrobe. For instance,
I am far more confident that the Vatican and Washington centered
macrobes exist than I am of the Grand Lodge of England Masonic
macrobe, to say nothing the the mythical [in my opinion] "Bavarian
Illuminati" macrobe.

Lloyd Said Earlier: Because the collective's pemes and memes are real in
the
minds of others the collectives are also real.

Mann Responded: This is a fallacious form of argument and phenomenon known
as hypostatization -- see '#TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak'
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07a.htm>. It's like arguing
that because people have a "Santa Claus" meme in their heads,
therefore "Santa Claus is real."

Lloyd Responds: Come on, Mann! You must know I didn't mean
that any idea in the mind of an individual creates a reality. Only
the scientific method can increase confidence that ideas have external
referents.

Mann went on to say: Also it's not the "collective's
pemes and memes"; only individual humans have memes/pemes in
their minds. (Of course, they also record their memes/pemes
and spread them using communication artifices.)

Lloyd Responds: Fine...that is your theory. However, I am suggesting
an alternate theory that may explain our sense data better. The social
organisms (collectives) exist and maintain their power by manipulating its
subsumed
individuals to extend its memes via human communication. Of course,
I think the social organism establishes, spreads, and protects its meme
structure through human intermediaries....though who knows? There
could be other mechanisms as well [Subspace signals or Morphic Resonance?]

Lloyd Said Earlier: The individualist need not join in. However, this not
easy
>and requires a life long struggle as one can unconsciously>accept many memes and pemes. People are born in collectives>and rapidly become infested with the memes propagated by the>collective's memetic field.

Mann Responded: No. People are born on beds in hospitals and homes
(mostly).
The memes they get infected with are propagated by parents,
teachers, preachers, politicians, journalists, etc. -- i.e.,
by individual human beings (often using communication artifices).

Lloyd Responded: Your theory. Mine is that the parents consciously
or unconsciously act as agents for the macrobe in imposing memes
on their offspring.

Lloyd Said Earlier: Only after decades of struggle a la Gurdjieff can
anyone hope
>to be an individual in direct contact with the evidence of>reality, unfiltered by the social organism.

Mann Responded: Reality isn't "filtered by the social organism," but by the
memes/pemes in the individual mind. Maybe further perusal of
'Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson' (by Gurdjieff), to the
point of overcoming the "kundabuffer" is necessary.

Lloyd Responds: Gurdjieff mentions in Tales to His Grandson many
times that man unconsciously serves "higher purposes"...in my theory
the social organism, Borg, Macrobe, or Metazon.

Lloyd Said Earlier: Denial of the objective existence of collectives is
denial
>of reality, often a vain positing of ones own individuality...

Mann Responded: The level-3 individualist doesn't deny "the objective
existence
of collectives." On the contrary, he contends that the *notion*
of "the objective existence of certain imagined collectives" in
the ontological collectivist's mind is illusional.

Lloyd Responds: Great! It is just a matter of determining which ones are
real and
which ones are not. However, this implies you are really not an
ultra-reductionist
nor a nominalist.

Lloyd Said Earlier: ...just as the individual has a reality beyond the
reality
>of electro-chemically manipulated cells and organs, collectives>have an existence beyond the actions of individual human beings,>including "Masters" or the "Ruling Class."

Mann Responded: This is a fallacious argument by analogy. The phemomenon of
my
cells, etc. forming a collective known as my body doesn't imply
that the same phenomenon applies to whatever supposed "collectives"
you care to imagine.

Lloyd Responds: It should be obvious that I was not making an argument,
but only clarifying my theory. Analogy is a valid heuristic method of
developing
and clarifying hypotheses and theories. I never meant to imply and analogy
proves anything...it illustrates. Only the scientific method can increase
or
decrease confidence that a mental representation corresponds to an external
reality

Lloyd Said Earlier: By the way, it is nearly universal that individualists
>have considered collectives delusional a la Stirner>though without being as thorough going. I say unto you:>Pretending collectives don't exist doesn't work.

In fact, pretending that "collectives exist" is sometimes
necessary for optimum survival. I don't argue with the
armed cop who thinks he's a "government official enforcing
the law." When I think it's appropriate I certainly pretend
that "collectives exist."----Frederick Mann

Lloyd's Final Shot: Great! We agree on goals. I would just
ask you to keep my alternate theoretical framework in mind
and see if it doesn't work better than yours in undestanding
and handling reality. I don't have to pretend vicious individual
devouring macrobes exist. I just have to pretend to be part
of them occasionally!
macrobes exist....